Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Thanks Marek! I know we had many discussions on this topic, so I very well
could have been the one that got confused.
Also, we have one more change this afternoon with the suggestion from John
Ulm, which was a good one.
Regards,
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012 11:10 PM
To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, EPoC Study Group
<STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Jorge,
>
>I saw many *final* versions, and it is hard to say which one is indeed the
>final one. I copied what I thought was the latest one, i.e., from an email
>with the latest timestamp. Seems that I was wrong
>
>I will copy what you have below
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 05 August 2012 07:18
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Marek,
>
>I think that after much discussion on the terms low, mid, high and top
>split, we ended up with the definitions included below. I *think* that the
>version you have in the list of terms that you just sent is not the latest
>one. Hopefully I did not miss a later update, but please correct me if I
>am
>wrong.
>
>Regards,
>Jorge
>
>Low split: also known as sub-split, an HFC network requiring a diplex
>filter
>in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and
>where the cross-over between the upstream and downstream occurs between 42
>and 54 MHz in 6 MHz channel plan systems and between 65 and 85 MHz in 8
>MHz
>channel plan systems
>
>Mid split: also known as extended sub-split, an HFC network requiring a
>diplex filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
>downstream, and where the cross-over between the upstream and downstream
>occurs between 85 and 108 MHz
>
>High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
>is transported in spectrum below the downstream in spectrum above 108 MHz
>
>Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are
>two
>upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream with the
>cross-over as per either the low, mid or high splits defined above, and
>another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:45 AM
>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>The list of terms was updated, as shown in the attached document with
>>tracked changes. Note specifically the extension in definitions of TDD
>>and FDD and difference between these modes and half and full duplex,
>>which I quote from the current version of P802.3bh (future 802.3-2012).
>>
>>I would also like to ask for input on missing terms and definitions. Is
>>there any specific wording that you would like to see in the definition
>>which is currently missing? If so, please do let me know.
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>Marek
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>>Sent: 26 July 2012 18:22
>>To: 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>Attached please find the updated version of the list of terms. If I do
>>not hear any additional requests for new terms by Friday EBD, I would
>>like to proceed to collect proposals for definitions, especially for
>>terms which do not have currently any definitions assigned to them.
>>
>>Marek
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>>Sent: 24 July 2012 07:27
>>To: 'Duane Remein'; 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Duane,
>>
>>The 2008 version of the standard will be long gone by the time we get
>>to any serious technical work, so the references were only incorrect
>>indicating the standard's year.
>>
>>I believe some key terms should be included in the list, even if they
>>just point to 802.3 specification, at least to prevent discussions on
>>what is a single PHY, where people would interpret the term freely, in
>>a manner not really consistent with 802.3 definitions
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Marek
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: 23 July 2012 12:15
>>To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Cc: Duane Remein
>>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Marek,
>>Give that this is a tool to help everyone learn the "proper" language I
>>don't see the need not to copy definitions from 802.3. I've done that
>>for all the "see Std IEEE 802.3-2008, 1.4.xx" references in the
>>attached. Note that your references were incorrect, were you using
>>clause numbering from the maintenance draft and not the 2008 edition as
>indicated?
>>Best Regards,
>>Duane
>>
>>FutureWei Technologies Inc.
>>duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
>>Director, Access R&D
>>919 418 4741
>>Raleigh, NC
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:48 AM
>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Jorge, et al.,
>>
>>Here is the updated list of terms accounting for recent discussions and
>>suggestions.
>>
>>I am off hiking
>>
>>Marek
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: 23 July 2012 07:40
>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>All,
>>
>>Based on everyone's comments, I would suggest the following definitions:
>>
>>HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to
>>transmit analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case
>>where we have digital return, but I think that's OK)
>>
>>Low split: also known as sub-split, an HFC network requiring a diplex
>>filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
>>downstream, and where the split between the upstream and downstream
>>occurs below 42 MHz in 6 MHz channel plan systems and 65 MHz in 8 MHz
>>channel plan systems
>>
>>Mid split: also known as extended sub-split, an HFC network requiring a
>>diplex filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below
>>the downstream, and where the split between the upstream and downstream
>>occurs below 108 MHz
>>
>>High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the
>>upstream is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and where the
>>split between the upstream and downstream occurs below 216 MHz
>>
>>Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are
>>two upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream
>>occupying spectrum as per either the low, mid or high splits defined
>>above, and another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jorge
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:00 AM
>>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>>Good morning all
>>>
>>>I want to point to some historical perspective on the topics below.
>>>
>>>Historically:
>>>
>>>SUB-SPLIT: defined as a cross over point of 42 MHz where the sub-low
>>>return is below 42 MHz with the forward being above.
>>>
>>>That places an EXTENDED SUB Split at 88 MHz, the start of the FM radio
>>>band, where everything below 88 MHz would represent return and
>>>everything above
>>>88
>>>MHz is the forward.
>>>
>>>MID-SPLIT defined the cross over point of the diplex filter as 108 MHz
>>>where everything below 108 MHz represents the return band. Everything
>>>above 108 MHz represents the forward.
>>>
>>>HIGH SPLIT is a little more difficult to define. Traditionally the
>>>high split was placed above channel 13 top end frequency is 216 MHz
>>>where everything below 216 MHz is return and above is forward network.
>>>
>>>TOP SPLIT is interesting and, again, historically first appeared as a
>>>result of TWC FSN (Full Service Network - if my memory is correct) a
>>>proof of concept network built in Orlando, Florida but was referred
>>>to, in my recollection, as HIGH RETURN. So I think we need to rethink
>>>and reflect on how this is described. To Jeff's point, today this
>>>reflects a "tri-plex filtering system.
>>>
>>>Incidentally, HIGH RETURN, at the time was considered not feasible for
>>>use for 2 reasons: 1- it placed a top end limit on what cable
>>>operators could offer for services and limited channel growth and 2-
>>>it required too much power to operate a return in for a communications
>channel.
>>>With everything moving to an IP delivery which frankly could mean
>>>unbounded channels the capacity limit in number 1 above may be moot.
>>>As for number 2, because power amplifier technology has evolved along
>>>with modulation, detection and error correction schemes, this may be
>>>more attainable but also may require significant changes in network
>>>architecture.
>>>
>>>I hope this presents some perspective which we may want to follow for
>>>consistency at this point.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Tom
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: <Finkelstein>, Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
>>Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:03 PM
>>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>>To me top-split means a triplex scenario where a second split goes
>>>above the downstream, not necessarily only for an upstream but that is
>>>how we typically view it.
>>>
>>>Some scenarios have a legacy upstream being below the downstream, then
>>>a second upstream being above the downstream spectrum. I think this is
>>>what has been referred to as top-split in respect to this discussion.
>>>
>>>________________________________________
>>>From: Noll, Kevin [kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:47 PM
>>>To: Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta); STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>>
>>>I have always understood top-split to mean that the upstream goes
>>>above the currently designed upper plant limits. Usually this means
>>>>750MHz or in some contexts >1GHz. Agreed that it isn't always clear
>>>on the exact frequency, but it is clear that it is higher than a
>high-split.
>>>
>>>--kan--
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:30 AM
>>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>>
>>>Jorge,
>>>
>>>I included both proposed definitions. Until clarification on the use
>>>of top-split is made, I will keep the term in the list tentatively and
>>>follow the discussion.
>>>
>>>Marek
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: <Kelsen>, Mike Kelsen <michael.kelsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:32 PM
>>To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Cc: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>>Jorge,
>>>
>>>I'd lean towards #1 and keep the top split definition even if just to
>>>say it was considered and dropped for various reasons.
>>>
>>>-Mike
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>Sent: 22 July 2012 10:28
>>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>>
>>>Marek,
>>>
>>>I think I would correct the definitions of Mid- and High-split, as
>>>follows:
>>>
>>>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>>downstream occurs between 65 and 100 MHz
>>>
>>>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>>downstream occurs above 100 MHz
>>>
>>>I still have some concern about a conflict between the definitions of
>>>High-
>>>and Top-split since they could overlap. Maybe we could solve it in one
>>>of two ways: 1. add something like "the upstream transmission occupies
>>>spectrum below the downstream" for low-, mid- and high-split
>>>definitions, or 2. Get rid of the top-split altogether since we won't
>>>be considering that option (as we discussed in the meeting in San
>>>Diego).
>>>
>>>I wonder what others, especially my MSO/CL colleagues, think.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:14 PM
>>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>>
>>>Marek,
>>>
>>>To add to your list, here is a start for the definitions for the
>>>various splits, and one additional definition (HFC):
>>>
>>>HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to
>>>transmit analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case
>>>where we have digital return, but I think that's OK)
>>>
>>>Low split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>>downstream occurs below 65 MHz
>>>
>>>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>>downstream occurs below 100 MHz
>>>
>>>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>>downstream occurs below 200 MHz
>>>
>>>
>>>Top split: an HFC network in which the upstream is placed above the
>>>downstream
>>>
>>>Hope this helps.
>>>
>>>Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>>>Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>>>Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:48 PM
>>>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>>
>>>>Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>Following the discussion in the morning, focused on the preparation
>>>>for September 2012 meeting, I would like to start discussion on
>>>>terminology for EPoC, as attached to this email. What I did so far,
>>>>was to go through the contributions discussed so far, to collect the
>>>>terms which were used most commonly in presentations and discussions,
>>>>with the special focus on terms generating heated discussions
>>>>(infamous
>>PHY).
>>>>The content is colour coded:
>>>>
>>>>- a term in green indicates that we have already a solid definition
>>>>in 802.3, which ought to be reused without changes
>>>>- a term in yellow indicates a term which is specific to EPoC, and I
>>>>felt sufficiently capable to propose the pass at the definition
>>>>- a term in red indicates a wording which I collected from one of
>>>>contributions, but it requires either further discussion,
>>>>clarification or confirmation whether it is needed at all.
>>>>
>>>>In the first pass through the list, please indicate whether any
>>>>critical terms are missing or unnecessary. My intent at this time is
>>>>to collect a complete list of terms, before we plunge into producing
>>>>missing definitions.
>>>>Please keep all discussion on the reflector so that we do not talk
>>>>past each other or repeat proposals. I will try to keep the list
>>>>updated as frequently as needed.
>>>>
>>>>Given that definitions are critical for technical discussions on
>>>>individual proposals, I'd suggest we complete the phase of collecting
>>>>terms by the 28th of July, at which time I will move to generating
>>>>individual missing definitions.
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>Marek
>>>>
>>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>>_
>>>>_
>>>>_
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1